Abstract

In the contemporary academy, scholars are expected to deliver highly measurable outcomes in order to build positive reputations for themselves and their institutions. The disclosure of any form of disability, within academe’s predominantly ableist culture, risks raising concerns about a faculty member’s professional competence to achieve expected results. This article is derived from a doctoral study based on qualitative interviews with 16 professors who self-identify as being invisibly disabled. The findings point to a pervasive culture of ableism and disability avoidance in the neoliberal academy. Participants discuss the often-negative impact of disability in their professional lives, which can be exacerbated by intersecting dimensions of differentness attached to their self-identities. The results of this study suggest that for faculty members who disclose an impairment, hoping to have their needs accommodated, the social response within the academy may be inimical, regardless of what policy or employment law requires of institutional administrators. This is clearly the reason why many participants say they only disclose if it seems absolutely necessary, even though they provide ample evidence that their differentness need not hamper their performance or their contribution to overall productivity.

摘要

在当代学术界，学者们被期望提供高度可衡量的成果，以便为他们自己和他们的机构建立积极的声誉。在学术界以能力者为主的文化中，披露任何形式的残疾都有可能引发对教职员工实现预期结果的专业能力的担忧。本文源自一项博士研究，该研究基于对 16 位自认为有隐形残疾的教授的定性访谈。调查结果表明，在新自由主义学院中普遍存在着一种残疾歧视和残疾避免的文化。参与者讨论了残疾在他们职业生涯中经常产生的负面影响，这种影响可能会因与他们的自我认同相关的差异的交叉维度而加剧。这项研究的结果表明，对于公开表示有缺陷、希望满足其需求的教职员工，无论政策或就业法对机构管理者有何要求，学院内的社会反应可能是有害的。这显然是为什么许多参与者说他们只在绝对必要时才披露的原因，尽管他们提供了充分的证据表明他们的差异不必妨碍他们的表现或他们对整体生产力的贡献。